Ex Parte Schroeder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 8, 2018

13126354 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/126,354 04/27/2011
10800 7590 05/08/2018
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bernd Schroeder
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2178-0465 2549
EXAMINER
KASTURE, DNY ANESH G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2018 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERND SCHROEDER, BERTHOLD PFUHL, and
PETER ROPERTZ
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, DANIELS. SONG, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bernd Schroeder et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-28 in this application.
The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Robert Bosch GmbH as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 11 is the sole independent claim on appeal, and it recites:
11. A high-pressure fuel pump for an internal combustion
engine with direct injection, comprising:
a pump housing;
an inlet valve in communication with a low-pressure
region on an inlet side of the high-pressure fuel pump, the inlet
valve configured to feed a first quantity of fuel into the pump
housing;
an outlet valve in communication with a high-pressure
region on an outlet side of the high-pressure fuel pump, the outlet
valve configured to feed a second quantity of fuel into a fuel
injector, wherein the second quantity is less than the first quantity
by a first amount;
a pressure damper; and
a purely mechanical pressure regulating device that
includes:
an inlet in communication with the high-pressure
region; and
an outlet in communication with a receiving
chamber of the pressure damper;
the purely mechanical pressure regulating device being
configured to:
feed the first amount of fuel from the high-pressure
region via the inlet to the pressure damper via the outlet
such that a quantity of fuel fed from the high-pressure
region to the fuel injector via the outlet valve is the second
quantity of fuel; and
regulate a pressure in the high-pressure region to be
an at least substantially constant pressure such that a
pressure of the second quantity of fuel fed to the fuel
injection is at the at least substantially constant pressure.
Appeal Br. 19-20 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 2
Claims 11-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
for lack of written description.
Claims 11-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
Claims 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Schroeder3 (DE 103 27 411 Al, pub. Apr. 29,
2004).
Claims 13-16, 19, 20, 22-24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schroeder and Siegel (WO 2007/122127 Al,
pub. Nov. 1, 2007).
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Schroeder and Albrecht4 (WO 2007 /009828 Al, pub. Jan. 25, 2007).
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Schroeder, Siegel, Rembold (US 7,401,593 B2, iss. July 22, 2008), and
Albrecht.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claims 11-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement. Non-Final Act. 3--4
(rejection); Ans. 2 (withdrawal).
3 Schroeder is the fourth-listed of four inventors on the face of this
reference. For consistency, we will refer to the reference as "Schroeder," as
the Examiner and Appellants have done. Non-Final Act. 5; Appeal Br. 13.
4 Albrecht is the fourth-listed of nine inventors on the face of this reference.
For consistency, we will refer to the reference as "Albrecht," as the
Examiner and Appellants have done. Non-Final Act. 11-12; Appeal Br. 17.
3
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
ANALYSIS
A. Written Description (Claims 11-28)
The Examiner's written description rejection focuses on the
functionality of the "purely mechanical pressure regulating device" recited
in claim 11. We discern two different bases for the rejection, which we
consider separately.
( 1) the device is configured to feed a first amount of fuel
from a high pressure region, and regulate a pressure in the
high pressure region to be an at least substantially constant
pressure
Claim 11 requires the purely mechanical pressure regulating device to
be "configured to: feed the first amount of fuel from the high-pressure
region," and "regulate a pressure in the high-pressure region to be an at least
substantially constant pressure." Appeal Br. 19-20 (Claims App.). The
Examiner determines those limitations lack support in Appellants'
Specification, and therefore constitute new matter. Non-Final Act. 2-3, 13.
The purely mechanical pressure regulating device of claim 11 is
representatively disclosed in Appellants' Specification as "a purely
mechanically functioning pressure regulating valve 54." Spec. Figs. 1 and 5,
i-fi-130-31, 35-37. The Examiner suggests, alternatively, "[i]t is possible"
that the claimed device refers to return line 52 in Appellants' Specification.
Ans. 3; see Spec. Fig. 1, i129. However, this alternative reading cannot be
correct, at least because line 52 is not a pressure regulating device, and
line 52 does not have an inlet in communication with high pressure
region 14, as required by claim 11. Ans. 3; Reply Br. 5---6.
Considering valve 54, the Examiner concludes:
4
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
The only way to deliver/feed the first amount of fuel to the
pressure damper is through the "pressure regulating" valve (54)
WHICH NEEDS TO ALWAYS BE OPEN. If the pressure is
below the spring bias (100) [of valve 54], then the valve will not
open and this limitation will not be met.
Non Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). The Examiner further states:
Paragraph [0030] [of Appellants' Specification] states that
pressure in the rail line 42 corresponds to opening pressure of
valve (54), which implies that any pressure variations BELOW
the opening pressure of valve (54) WILL NOT open the valve
therefore the pressure cannot be "at least substantially constant
pressure" as stated at the end of claim 11.
Id. at 13.
Appellants argue the challenged limitations are supported by
paragraphs 30 and 37 of their Specification. Appeal Br. 5-7. 5 Appellants
contend "the first amount of fuel" in claim 11 corresponds to the description
in paragraph 30 of "the feed quantity of the pump piston 32 [that] is greater
than the injected fuel quantity" sent to fuel injector rail 42. Id. at 6. In other
words, Appellants' view is that the first amount of fuel is the amount
"unneeded" by the fuel injectors, and is therefore "returned to" low pressure
region 12 via valve 54. Id. (quoting Spec. i-f 30). Appellants assert the
Examiner errs in determining valve 54 always needs to be open, because
while valve 54 will be open during normal operation, there will be times of
non-normal operation when the pressure upstream of valve 54 will not be
high enough to open valve 54. Id. at 6-7 (citing Spec. i-fi-130, 37).
5 The Appeal Brief refers to paragraph numbers 26 and 33, but the
quotations in the Appeal Brief are from paragraphs 30 and 37 of the
Specification filed on April 27, 2011. Similar corrections to Appellants'
citations to the Specification are made below.
5
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
The Examiner answers that valve 54 "has to be open otherwise the
first amount will be zero and the second quantity would not be less than the
first quantity as claimed (it will be equal)." Ans. 4. The Examiner further
objects that claim 11 "mentions nothing about 'normal operation.'" Id.
Appellants maintain in reply that the first amount may be zero, and in
that instance the claim merely "requires that 'the second quantity is less than
the first quantity Qy_' zero." Reply Br. 6. Appellants contend, therefore, that
claim 11 does not require the pressure regulating device always to remain
open. Id. Appellants further assert "the first quantity cannot be less than the
second quantity" in claim 11, so "fuel is fed into the pump at or exceeding
the level needed by the injectors," such that valve 54 expels fuel above the
needed level. Id.
We conclude Appellants' Specification reasonably conveys
possession of a purely mechanical pressure regulating device - specifically,
valve 54 - which is configured to feed an amount of fuel from the high
pressure region, and thereby regulate a pressure in the high pressure region
to be an at least substantially constant pressure. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v.
Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane) (setting
forth test for sufficiency of written description). Paragraph 30 of the
Specification describes Appellants' Figure 1 as follows:
Since in normal operation the feed quantity of the pump
piston 32 is greater than the injected fuel quantity, an unneeded
quantity of fuel on the high-pressure side 14 is returned to the
low-pressure region 12 again via a purely mechanically
functioning pressure regulating valve 54. The pressure in the
common rail 42 thus substantially corresponds to the opening
pressure of the pressure regulating valve 54.
6
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
Spec. i-f 30. Paragraph 37 of the Specification indicates valve 54 opens when
the pressure in high pressure region 14 exceeds the limit pressure of
valve 54, such that "pressure in the high-pressure region 14 is kept
essentially constant, namely at the limit pressure or opening pressure" of
valve 54. Id. i-f 37.
Whether valve 54 needs to be open to perform the disclosed
functionality is not decisive of written description support. The Examiner
does not cite, and we cannot find, any limitation in claim 11 which precludes
the purely mechanical pressure regulating device from always being open.
Further, even if valve 54 closes during some conditions, it is clear that
valve 54 opens during "normal operation" to keep the pressure within high
pressure region 14 "essentially constant." Spec. i-fi-130, 37. Nothing more is
required to demonstrate possession of valve 54 "being configured to" feed
an amount of fuel from the high pressure region, and thereby regulate a
pressure in the high pressure region to be an at least substantially constant
pressure.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11, or of claims 12-28
depending from claim 11, as lacking written description in the foregoing
regards.
(2) the device is configured to feed the first amount of fuel
from the high pressure region, such that the quantity of fuel fed
to a fuel injector is the second quantity of fuel, wherein the
second quantity is less than the first quantity by the first amount
Claim 11 recites an "inlet valve configured to feed a first quantity of
fuel into the pump housing," and an "outlet valve configured to feed a
second quantity of fuel into a fuel injector, wherein the second quantity is
less than the first quantity by a first amount." Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.)
7
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
(emphases added). Claim 11 further requires a "purely mechanical pressure
regulating device being configured to: feed the first amount of fuel from the
high-pressure region ... such that a quantity of fuel fed ... to the fuel
injector ... is the second quantity of fuel." Id. (emphases added).
The Examiner concludes those claim limitations fail to account for the
quantity of fuel leaking past piston 32 to be returned to low pressure
region 12 via return line 52. Ans. 3--4; see also Spec. Fig. 1, i-f 29
(describing operation of return line 52). This analysis amounts to an
undesignated new ground of rejection set forth in the Answer. See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.39 & 41.40. Nonetheless, Appellants waived any procedural relief
which may have been granted by opting to file a Reply Brief to address the
rejection. Id.§ 41.40(a).
The Examiner interprets claim 11 to require that:
first quantity = second quantity + first amount.
Ans. 3--4. In contrast, according to the Examiner, Appellants' Specification
discloses only that:
first quantity = second quantity + first amount + return line 52 quantity.
Id. at 4.
In reply, Appellants point out that the fuel which leaks past piston 32
to enter return line 52 is fed back to low pressure line 22. Reply Br. 4.
According to Appellants, such leakage fuel "would then continue, as with
the rest of the first quantity, to be fed into the injector [42] as the second
amount [sic "quantity"], or into the regulating device [54] as the first
amount." Reply Br. 4. Appellants additionally assert the Examiner errs in
interpreting the recitation in claim 11 that "the second quantity is less than
the first quantity by a first amount" as requiring "the second quantity is less
8
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
than the first quantity by exactly a first amount." Id. at 4--5. In Appellants'
view, "being less than the first quantity by the first amount and an additional
amount [i.e., in return line 52] does not prevent the 'second quantity' being
'less than the first quantity by the first amount' as required by claim [11]."
Id.
We, first, agree with the Examiner's interpretation of "the second
quantity is less than the first quantity by a first amount" as requiring the
second quantity to be less than the first quantity by exactly the first amount.
Appellants' alternative interpretation effectively modifies the claim
limitation to recite "the second quantity is less than the first quantity by at
least a first amount." That is not what claim 11 recites. Instead, claim 11
recites that the first quantity of fuel, which is the quantity of fuel entering the
pump housing through the inlet valve (claim 11, lines 5---6), becomes part of
either the second quantity of fuel fed to the fuel injector (claim 11, lines 8-
9), or part of the first amount of fuel recirculated through the pressure
regulating device (claim 11, lines 16-20). There is no room in these claim
limitations, when read together, for the first quantity to go anywhere other
than to the fuel injector or to the pressure regulating device.
Referring to Appellants' Figure 1, claim 11 defines the first quantity
of fuel as the fuel fed into the pump 10 housing via inlet valve 28. See
Claim 11 (lines 5---6); Spec. Fig. 3 (illustrating housing 58 of pump 10, and
inlet valve 28). As can be seen in Appellants' Figure 1, the first quantity of
fuel exits inlet valve 28 to enter work chamber 30 of pump 10. Spec. i-f 28.
The first quantity of fuel exits work chamber 30 either by leaking past
piston 32 to enter return line 52, or by passing through outlet valve 36 to
enter high pressure line 40. Id. i-fi-128-29. The fuel entering high pressure
9
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
line 40 either continues on as the second quantity of fuel fed to injection
valve rail 42, or diverts as the first amount of fuel to valve 54. Id. i-f 30;
claim 11 (lines 8-9, 16-20). Appellants do not cite, and we cannot find, any
disclosure in their Specification indicating possession of a fuel pump which
has zero fuel leakage to return line 52. See, e.g., Spec. Figs. 1 and 3, i-f 29
(illustrating return line 52). Therefore, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated possession of the first quantity going solely to injection valve
rail 42 or to valve 54, and not going anywhere else, as required by claim 11.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 11, and of claims 12-28
depending from claim 11, as lacking written description of a pressure
regulating device being configured to feed the first amount of fuel from the
high pressure region, such that the quantity of fuel fed to the fuel injector is
the second quantity of fuel, wherein the second quantity is less than the first
quantity by the first amount.
B. Indefiniteness (Claims 11-28)
We discern two different bases for the Examiner's indefiniteness
rejection, which we consider separately.
(1) the pressure regulating device is configured to regulate a
pressure in the high pressure region to be an at least
substantially constant pressure
The Examiner determines the claim 11 limitation reciting an "at least
substantially constant pressure" is indefinite. Non-Final Act. 5. The
Examiner determines there is no standard provided in Appellants' claims or
Specification to identify the degree or percentage of variation from a
"constant" pressure that is permitted by the term "at least substantially," so
the scope of claim 11 is unclear. Id.; Ans. 6-7.
10
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
Appellants respond that the term "substantially constant" recognizes
the fact that "in practice, the pressure will always vary at least slightly."
Appeal Br. 10. Appellants contend a person of ordinary skill in the art
"would be well familiar with constant pressure systems and would be
reasonably appraised as to what qualifies as a substantially constant pressure
in the context of fuel pumps." Id. at 10-13. Appellants assert their
Specification, at paragraph 10, reflects such familiarity. Id. at 10, 12.
The Examiner answers that Appellants have admitted the claimed
pressure regulating device can "open ... to some extent" (quoting Appeal
Br. 7), thereby implying it can also open to a "full extent," leading to a range
of contemplated pressures being achieved by the pressure regulating device.
Ans. 7. The Examiner maintains claim 11 is unclear in failing to specify the
extent to which pressure variations within the contemplated range may be
considered to result in a "substantially constant" pressure. Id.
We conclude claim 11 is not indefinite in reciting that the pressure
regulating device is configured to regulate a pressure in the high pressure
region to be an at least substantially constant pressure. The Specification
indicates the opening pressure of valve 54 is set to the desired pressure of
injection valves 44, thereby reducing the pressure of fuel exiting outlet
valve 36 to that desired pressure level, and keeping the pressure in high
pressure region 14 "essentially constant" at that desired pressure level.
Spec. i-fi-130, 37. The term "substantially" recognizes there will be minor
pressure pulsations within line 40, corresponding to the pumping of
piston 32, but such pulsations will be regulated to be inconsequential to the
operation of fuel pump 10. Spec. i-fi-f 12, 31. The term "substantially" also
recognizes there may be periods of non-normal operation when the pressure
11
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
may not be constant, but that the duration of such periods will be
insignificant in relation to the duration of normal operation when the
pressure will be substantially constant. See Spec. i-fi-130, 37.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11,
and of claims 12-28 depending from claim 11, as being indefinite in reciting
an "at least substantially constant pressure."
(2) the second quantity is less than the first quantity
by a first amount
Claim 11 recites "the second quantity [of fuel] is less than the first
quantity by a first amount." Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
The Examiner concludes that limitation is "indefinite because it is not
clear what structure" in Appellants' Specification performs the recited
function, and the limitation conflicts with the Specification and other claim
limitations. Ans. 5---6. The Examiner's underlying indefiniteness analysis
mirrors the written description analysis, set forth above, concerning claim 11
failing to account for leakage of fuel past the pump piston. Id. Appellants'
reply, likewise, mirrors the written description arguments set forth above.
Reply Br. 3-5.
As is apparent from our discussion of the written description rejection,
we conclude claim 11 is not unclear in this regard. That is, claim 11
pertinently requires a pressure regulating device being configured to feed the
first amount of fuel from the high pressure region, such that the quantity of
fuel fed to the fuel injector is the second quantity of fuel, wherein the second
quantity is less than the first quantity by the first amount. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 11, and of claims 12-28 depending from
12
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
claim 11, as being indefinite in reciting "the second quantity is less than the
first quantity by a first amount."
C. Anticipation by Schroeder (Claims 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, and 2 5)
In reviewing the Examiner's anticipation rejection, we first consider
the scope of claim 11. We conclude the functionality of the pressure
regulating device recited in the final two claim limitations refers to the time
period when the fuel pump is feeding fuel to the fuel injector - that is,
during a delivery stroke of the pump. In particular, the final two limitations
of claim 11 require the pressure regulating device to be configured to "feed
the first amount of fuel ... such that a quantity of fuel fed ... to the fuel
injector . .. is the second quantity of fuel," and "regulate a pressure ... such
that a pressure of the second quantity of fuel fed to the fuel injection is at the
at least substantially constant pressure." Appeal Br. 19-20 (Claims App.)
(emphases added).
The Examiner finds Schroeder includes the purely mechanical
pressure regulating device of claim 11 as pressure relief valve 56. See
Non-Final Act. 6-7; Schroeder6 i-f 37. Schroeder discloses several different
embodiments of pressure relief valve 56. Schroeder, Figs. 2 and 4--13. The
Examiner relies on the embodiment of Figure 7, and alternatively on the
embodiment of Figures 11-12. Non-Final Act. 6-7. Appellants contend the
Examiner errs, in part, because Schroeder's relief valves 56 "specifically
do[] not open during pressure pulsations." Appeal Br. 15. For the following
reasons, we agree with Appellants.
6 Citations herein to the written description of Schroeder refer to the English
translation entered into the record by the Examiner on June 18, 2014.
13
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
First concerning the Figure 7 embodiment, Schroeder indicates "the
separator piston 90 ... presses [spring plate] 7 4 during the delivery stroke of
the high-pressure pump and thus prevents opening of the pressure relief
valve 56 during the pumping stroke." Schroeder i-fi-161-62 (emphases
added). In other words, valve 56 of Figure 7 is configured to remain closed
during the delivery stroke of Schroeder's pump.
The Examiner finds valve 56 of Figure 7 is, as claimed, configured to
feed the first amount of fuel from the high pressure region such that the fuel
injector receives the second quantity of fuel. Non-Final Act. 6, 14. In
support, the Examiner concludes that "when it (56) is open," "part of the fuel
is delivered to the pressure damper and the rest (second quantity) is
delivered to the injectors." Id. at 6 (emphases added); see also id. at 14
("when the regulating valve [56] of Schroeder is open, a greater quantity of
fuel is fed into the inlet valve than an amount that is to be fed via an outlet
valve to the fuel injector") (emphasis added).
The Examiner's reliance on valve 56 being open, however, overlooks
Schroeder's disclosure that valve 56 remains closed during a delivery stroke
of Schroeder's pump, which is the relevant time period in the pertinent claim
limitation. Thus, the Examiner's findings are not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
The Examiner also finds valve 56 of Figure 7 is, as claimed,
configured to regulate a pressure of the second quantity of fuel fed to the
fuel injection to be at the at least substantially constant pressure. Non-Final
Act. 6-7, 14--15. The Examiner cites paragraph 4, line 10 of Schroeder as
"disclos[ing] that the distance between the pump and the valve can be such
that 'there is a smoothing of the pressure fluctuations due to the throttle
14
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
effect in the fuel line," resulting in the claimed fuel pressure regulation. Id.
at6, 14.
However, the cited Schroeder disclosure refers to previously known
pressure relief valves, and indicates it had been known to place such valves
"at a certain distance from the high-pressure pump," to smooth the pressure
pulsations received by the valves. Schroeder i-fi-14--5. The goal of
Schroeder's invention was to place pressure relief valve 56 closer to the
pumping chamber, but to design valve 56 to protect it against pressure
fluctuations arising from the pumping chamber. Id. i-fi-16-8. Valve 56 shown
in Figure 7 is such a valve. Id. Fig. 7 (illustrating proximity of valve 56 to
piston 62 in bore 64). Thus, Schroeder's disclosure in paragraph 4
concerning smoothing of pressure fluctuations does not apply to Figure 7.
Alternatively, the Examiner finds that "when [valve 56] is closed the
pressure variations are limited to between a maximum pressure (opening
pressure of valve 56) and a minimum pressure (opening pressure of
valve 44)," thereby creating an at least substantially constant pressure.
Non-Final Act. 6-7 (emphases added), 14--15. The Examiner, further,
concludes the substantially constant pressure claim limitation "does not
impose an added STRUCTURAL limitation," and "it is within the capability
of ordinary skill to design" Schroeder's pressure relief valve 56 and outlet
valve 44 "so that [the minimum to maximum] range can be made as small as
needed to meet the limitation." Non-Final Act. 14, 15; see also Ans. 2, 9
(concluding "[t]he claimed operational limitations are capable of being
performed by the apparatus of Schroeder," and "the manner of operating a
device does not structurally distinguish over the prior art").
15
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
However, the Examiner's reliance on valve 56 opening to produce a
maximum pressure overlooks Schroeder's disclosure that valve 56 remains
closed during a delivery stroke of Schroeder's pump, which is the relevant
time period in the pertinent claim limitation. We appreciate claim 11 recites
the pressure regulating device is "configured to" perform specified
functions, and thereby defines the claimed pump functionally rather than
structurally. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
("A patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either
structurally or functionally.") Nonetheless, even in this circumstance, the
Examiner bears the burden of establishing that the structure disclosed in
Schroeder is capable of performing the recited function. Id. at 1478-79.
The Examiner has not met that burden here, given Schroeder's express
disclosure that valve 56 is configured to remain closed during a delivery
stroke of Schroeder's pump. Thus, the Examiner's findings are not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
It may be true, as the Examiner determines, that a person of ordinary
skill could modify Schroeder's valve 56 to open during a delivery stroke and
thereby set a maximum pressure. See Non-Final Act. 14, 15. Nonetheless,
such potential modifications are the purview of obviousness, not of
anticipation.
Next concerning Schroeder's Figures 11-12, Schroeder discloses
valve 56 illustrated therein, like valve 56 of Figure 7, is configured to remain
closed during a delivery stroke of Schroeder's pump. Schroeder i-fi-1 77, 79-
80, 87. Thus, the Examiner's reliance on Schroeder's Figures 11-12 suffers
from the same deficiencies noted above in relation to Figure 7.
16
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11
as anticipated by Schroeder. The Examiner's additional consideration of
dependent claims 12, 17, 18, 21, and 25 does not cure the noted deficiency
of Schroeder in connection with claim 11. See Non-Final Act. 7-8.
Accordingly, we likewise do not sustain the rejections of those claims as
anticipated by Schroeder.
D. Obviousness over Schroeder and one or more of Siegel, Albrecht, and
Rembold (Claims 13-16, 19, 20, 22-24, and 26--28)
The Examiner's additional consideration of Siegel, Albrecht, and
Rembold in connection with dependent claims 13-16, 19, 20, 22-24, and
26-28 does not cure the deficiency of Schroeder in connection with claim 11
noted above. See Non-Final Act. 9-13. Accordingly, for the reasons
provided above, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 13-16, 19, 20,
22-24, and 26-28 as unpatentable over Schroeder and one or more of Siegel,
Albrecht, and Rembold.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 11-28 for lack of written description is
reversed as to the pressure regulating device being configured to feed a first
amount of fuel from a high pressure region to a pressure damper, and
regulate a pressure in the high pressure region to be an at least substantially
constant pressure.
The rejection of claims 11-28 for lack of written description is
affirmed as to the pressure regulating device being configured to feed the
first amount of fuel from the high pressure region, such that the quantity of
fuel fed to the fuel injector is the second quantity of fuel, wherein the second
quantity is less than the first quantity by the first amount.
17
Appeal2016-005954
Application 13/126,354
The rejection of claims 11-28 as indefinite is reversed.
The rejection of claims 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, and 25 as anticipated by
Schroeder is reversed.
The various rejections of claims 13-16, 19, 20, 22-24, and 26-28 as
unpatentable over Schroeder and one or more of Siegel, Albrecht, and
Rembold, are each reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
18